Cartoon characters need protection from sexual abuse, Australia’s supreme court recognized. According to the voodoo theory of child porn, each time someone looks at the cartoon, the cartoon figure will be victimized again. Or maybe the paper, or the computer hard disk will be victimized.

Police see rise in child porn cases committed by children: Of course, children are live walking child pornography themselves. When they look in the bathroom mirror, what do they see? Child pornography, of course. And children need to be protected from themselves. Putting them in a court of law to save them from victimizing themselves. Sorry, we have difficulty understanding this nonsense witch hunt beliefs.

Rethinking Sex Offender Laws for Youth Texting |NYT. Excesses of Child pornography hysteria victimize innocent children of law abiding middle class parents. So there is a tendency to fix the worst excesses of child pornography laws. This is a small step to reduce victims of child pornography laws. Fewer people care about adult men who spend 20 years in prison for possession of pictures. Child porn laws victimize children directly, as "child pornographers", Milton Diamond has proven that child porn prohibition laws also victimize children indirectly, by increasing real child sexual abuse,

Consider that child pornography was actually LEGAL at one time. Later, it became illegal to PRODUCE. And then it became illegal to DISTRIBUTE. And then it became illegal to SHOW to someone else. And then it became illegal to POSSESS if produced AFTER a certain date. And then all possession became illegal. And then the penalties became stiffer. Then stiffer, still. And stiffer again and again.

How true

Consider also that child pornography now includes DRAWINGS and CARTOONS which at no time involved the use of actual children, something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

McEwan appealed against the ruling, arguing that fictional cartoon characters could not be considered people.

Justice Adams said: "If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted. Their creation would constitute crimes at the very highest end of the criminal calendar."

He also ruled that, while the characters from The Simpsons had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the fact they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

He said the law was in place to deter the production of cartoons that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".

Of course, prohibition of child porn fuels the demand for real children, as Dr. Milton Diamond‘s papers prove. Those who can act out their urges masturbating with pictures of children have less urge to abuse real children. Additionally, much of child porn is neither porn nor has (prepubescent) children, rather is adolescent erotica (Knox vs. USA, Copine scale).

Of course, children are live child pornography themselves. And they need to be protected from themselves. Putting them in a court of law to save them from victimizing themselves. Sorry, we have difficulty understanding this nonsense witch hunt beliefs.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Police are issuing a warning for Mid-State youth disturbing pornographic images of themselves and their friends via the Internet.

Although sent by minors, the cases are considered child porn and violators will be prosecutors.

Currently in Metro, Sex Crimes Detective Mike Adkins says he has five cases of child-initiated child porn on his desk and the number of cases continues to climb.

According to Adkins, either the juveniles don’t understand the risks involved or they don’t care.

Well, it difficult. Children see naked women everywhere. On Playboy magazine covers. Now if they photograph themselves in the mirror, in the same pose, they commit a heinous crime. They are unaware of voodoo theory that posits that they are victimizing themselves while photographing, and that they get victimized again when their friend looks at their photo.

It is hard to explain illogical things to children. It is difficult enough to explain them logical things, to get them to eat broccoli and abstain from burgers and fries. But making them understand that taking their own pictures is the worst of crimes? Much worse then theft or robbery?

One might explain to a child not to post nude photos on Facebook. But how to explain that what they see when they look in the bathroom mirror is live child porn which can not be photographed even to keep on one’s own camera? Should they close their eyes when changing clothes in front of a mirror?

"The children are committing several crimes manufacturing of child porn, distribution of child porn and if it is still on their phones or computers, the possession of child porn," he explained, adding, "To the kids, understand this is a crime and the Internet is a real place with real rules that you have to follow and if you don’t follow them you could wind up in jail."

"I can’t think of any reason for a kid to have a Web cam in their own room," Adkins said. "If they do, I can guarantee they are doing things that you might not want them to do."

A good way to acquaint children with the concept of a police state. Senseless silly laws that carry extreme penalties, even for children

While district attorneys have been reluctant to prosecute child-initiated child porn cases, Adkins predicts that will soon change.

Things are getting worse before they get better. Maybe this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back and decent middle class parents will rebel against these laws.

In Iowa, Jorge Canal is on the sex offenders registry because, at age 18, he was convicted of distributing obscene materials to a minor after he sent a picture of his penis by cellphone to a 14-year-old female friend who had requested it.

In Florida, Phillip Alpert, then 18, was charged with distributing child pornography and put on the sex offenders registry because after a fight, he sent a photograph of his nude 16-year-old girlfriend by e-mail to dozens of people, including her parents.

In most states, teenagers who send or receive sexually explicit photographs by cellphone or computer — known as “sexting” — have risked felony child pornography charges and being listed on a sex offender registry for decades to come.

But there is growing consensus among lawyers and legislators that the child pornography laws are too blunt an instrument to deal with an adolescent cyberculture in which all kinds of sexual pictures circulate on sites like MySpace and Facebook.

Criminalizing children for photographing themselves is a cruel consequence of child pornography laws. Of course, Human-Stupidity thinks that this is only the most extreme example and that child porn laws are cruel in general, damaging adults and children, while doing almost no good at all and actually helping to increase sexual child abuse (Milton Diamond). Child abuse laws should suffice. Why don’t we have laws against possession of murder, mutilation, lynching, adolescent jackass wannabe, and child shaking nanny movies.

The district attorney told parents of the students involved — both those in the images and those whose phones contained the images — that their children could be prosecuted for child pornography unless they took part in an after-school program.

The program, divided by gender, involved random drug tests, probation and classes in which the girls would “gain an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today’s society,” by, among other things, writing essays on why their actions were wrong.

Only three of more than a dozen families refused to join the program — those of two girls, ages 12 and 13, who were pictured wearing bras at a slumber party, and of a third girl who was shown emerging from the shower with a towel wrapped under her breasts. The parents say the photographs were not pornographic, a question no court has yet considered.

And there has been no evidence that any of the three girls played a part in circulating the photographs.

The parents went to court, claiming that prosecution would amount to retaliation for refusal to join the program.

It must be traumatizing to participate in such classes. Children get traumatized by cruel repressive sex and child pornography laws. Rarely children get traumatized by child pornography in spite of voodoo theories.

Between the ages of 15 and 19, he downloaded pornography, much of it involving boys ages 10-12, and shared files with other users. When he was 19 years old, the FBI ensnared him in a sting and the world came crashing down. Under federal law, “C.R.” faced a statutory minimum of five years in prison. Until Judge Jack B. Weinstein intervened, ruling that the 5-year minimum is unconstitutional in C.R.’s case, due to the youth’s age and immaturity. The ruling is part of a crusade by Weinstein, one of the United States’ most accomplished and respected jurists, against what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.” Previously, the 89-year-old federal judge in the Eastern District of New York led a similar campaign against rigid drug sentencing.

Alan Vaughn says:

Like or Dislike: 30

Yeah, that’s because everything related to the issue has been legisalated with IRRATIONAL laws (that have NOTHING to do with ‘protecting children’). The laws have all been passed by governments who are either run by feminists or at least intimidated, thus coerced by feminists; and if not feminists: extreme conservative religious zealots; or both!
This child-porn witch hunt is an essential part of a ‘propaganda machine’ that has been meticulously (socially) engineered by the feminist movement to help them with their wicked campaign against the male gender. The child-porn witch hunt is essential to that campaign as it has been (and still continues to be) most effective at DEMONIZING men and (normal) male sexuality.
If you want to see a whole lot more about the same topic, read some posts here:http://theantifeminist.com

Alan Vaughn says:

Like or Dislike: 10

I say it’s WORSE than that! I say if you compare the criminalization of 0’s and 1’s found on electronic storage media (let alone the lengths they go to to detect the data), to persecution of what people genuinely believed were evil beings (i.e. ‘witches’); the very core of our society has been degraded to a level far more primitive, irrational and draconian than that of the middle ages.
We have become much sicker and grossly more IGNORANT and STUPID than any of the original ‘witch-hunt’ societies.
Anyone with an once of common sense in today’s educated, advanced and modern society should be able to reason that looking at images of ANYTHING at all is hardly the kind of behaviour that should earn the viewer of such images many years in prison..??
However it seems that we are. At least 98% of the population of the Western world believe that MEN who look at images of ‘children’ (under 17 years old) are perverts, pedophiles or sick bastards that deserve even MORE than 10 years in prison, as well as being persecuted and harassed for the rest of their lives, by way of being promulgated on a publicly accessible sex-offender registry…
And we are a liberated and free thinking society?

BTW lets not forget too that the same 98% of that population also think it’s quite OK for ANYONE including young children to view and even laugh at REAL images (not modified or ‘reworked’ Bart Simpson cartoon images) of people being stoned to death in public, burned to death, beheaded or otherwise brutally murdered.

@Alan Vaughn: I totally agree with your statements, though I doubt the numbers. I wish to think that they are not quite as high. Especially about children seeing beheadings.

Or do you have empirical support for the numbers. We should try to popularize “Four out of five people want to lynch pedophiles”? (which of course then hinges on the definition of pedophile, like someone looking at photos of 17 year olds).

By the way, I wish I had people like you accompany my important posts about psychological theories, like robert kurzban etc.

I have a post about dishonest manipulative discussion techniques in the pipeline

Alan Vaughn says:

Like or Dislike: 10

@human-stupidity
No, I don’t have empirical support for the percentages I mentioned, but I think I would be very close to being correct. This educated guess is based purely on what I’ve read on open forums and blogs where public comments are invited.
About the be-headings: I too hope I am way off the mark, but I haven’t seen much public objection to that anywhere, thus assume that the relentless persecution of perverts, peados etc, is far more important to them. I have seen forums with literally thousands of comments (all from different posters) expressing intense hatred towards them, which should be disturbing to anyone with even a hint of humanity in their souls…
Not so, that’s why I find these comments and the volume of them rather disturbing.
We are living in a true inquistion era, not unlike the inquistion (witch-hunt) of heretics, witches and other non-conformists who were persecuted and condemed to death in Europe during the middle ages.